Enhanced protection for certain elected officials and clearer internal control in municipalities and regions

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! This will be a bit of a continuation of the previous debate. At the same time, I want to say that this, contrary to what is often said here in the chamber, is not something I am particularly happy to have to debate.

Very often, proposals are submitted and changes are made with a positive purpose. I believe, however, that we all have reason to reflect a little on why this is needed.

We still have, and must have, the image that politics is steered by the engaged citizen – the citizen who takes initiative and, together with others, implements changes. Let the mental image be a little bit like Emil i Lönneberga – you hear that I have slightly different literary references than in previous debates, Madam President of the Ageing Committee. Emil i Lönneberga became, at his age, chairman of the municipal board. It reflects a kind of idyll. It reflects a kind of tradition that I believe we all cherish.

The bill that this report deals with actually shows in two aspects that that image no longer really exists.

Let us take them in turn. The first comes from how we should protect elected representatives. If we want that engaged citizen, we must of course also accept that the engaged citizen has human qualities. One becomes afraid. One is influenced. One is subjected to influence in a way that perhaps makes one risk backing away from the engagement.

One should not have to rule out commitment. We must have a system so that all people can take on political commitment. Otherwise, we have lost something. Every person who finds that their daily life or social situation changes by me becoming involved and who therefore rules out commitment for the common good is a loss for democracy.

Therefore, it is necessary that we now say: It should not be like this!

The bill we are discussing concerns what role the municipality should have. We must also remember that there are law enforcement authorities, the police, and others who are to ensure that politicians are not subjected to threats, hate, violence, and undue influence.

Let me comment on another current event. One should not have to be subjected to activists on one's own property, even if one holds an opinion that someone might possibly think is incorrect. Opinions should be addressed in debate, not with methods that make people opt out of engagement.

The failure to protect elected representatives is a loss for democracy. We must take that to heart.

The second aspect has to do with how one can use an organization that handles large sums of money in a dishonest way. I mean, of course, such things as are obvious, such as fraud and crime, but there are also problems where a lack of competence or inexperience in handling issues leads to the situation being exploited, or for that matter, pure negligence.

That is why it is important that we, with this bill, state that municipalities shall actively work with an internal control which involves striving to reduce the risks of crime, increase competence, and catch up carelessness or such things that are not necessarily ill-intentioned but which nevertheless lead to large costs.

The proposal we have to deal with, a strengthened protection for certain elected officials and a clearer internal control in municipalities and regions, is important and correct. But it is a pity that the proposal is needed.

Madam Speaker! These self-evident matters must now be adopted, and therefore I move for the approval of the proposal in the Committee on the Constitution's report 19, Strengthened protection for certain elected officials and clearer internal control in municipalities and regions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I cannot endorse Ulrik Nilsson's speech, but I can largely stand behind the spirit of the speech.

It is naturally not acceptable to throw tomatoes at a minister from the gallery in the chamber or to intrude upon a minister's private property and in that manner expose both the minister and his relatives to not only anxiety but also a sense of threat.

Unlike previous debates, I do not intend to engage in Bible quotes about sins. However, I think that this is something of a political sin that we have left untreated for too long, namely the protection of our municipal and regional elected representatives. It is, of course, completely crucial for the strength and survival of democracy that elected representatives can carry out their duties without having to be subjected to threats.

I come from a county where the regional council on Monday made a decision that has sparked many emotions and upset feelings. I have my own views on parts of that decision, but it is clear that it turns one's stomach when one sees comments on social media that those who made the decision should be taken out into the square and stoned or that their relatives should be subjected to a wicked, sudden death.

This is not something that leads to us having fewer elected representatives at the municipal or regional level. It did not require an active threat face to face, or actually violence, for someone to choose not to take on a mandate. Often it is a matter of – I won't say milder, but – other previous steps that make one already wonder if the mandate is worth taking.

Madam Speaker! Measures that can contribute to increasing and improving the security work around elected officials in municipalities and regions are welcome. In a society where those who engage in municipalities and regions are subjected to threats or violence, democracy is diminished. To counter this, more measures are definitely required, and we welcome a clarification of the responsibilities of municipalities and regions. But one area where we Social Democrats differ from the government concerns partly the scope of the legal regulation, and partly which elected officials should be covered.

In the government's bill, it is stipulated that municipalities and regions shall take all measures for preventive purposes and that everything that can lead to ill health or accidents shall be changed or replaced so that the risk of ill health or accidents is eliminated.

We mean that this is practically impossible, and it also does not have support in the constitutional commentary, where it is spoken of that this should be a starting point. It seems natural that a starting point cannot place absolute requirements on measures for municipalities and regions, especially not such as apply to a group as special as elected officials. As an example, one can take a rally in an election campaign. It can be risk-assessed by officials in the municipality as something that can lead to ill health. How is the municipality to change or replace such a context to prevent ill health? We mean that the legal text should instead place requirements to take necessary measures and that the consequences of the legislation should subsequently be evaluated.

This may seem like hair-splitting to an outsider listening to the debate, but it is something fundamentally different to be an elected official compared to a regular employment relationship. The provisions of the Work Environment Act are not applicable in the same way since the municipality is not the elected official's employer.

I want to emphasize once again, Madam Speaker, that we generally welcome stronger protection for elected representatives. But it is necessary that we, as legislators, are restrained regarding overly extensive and potentially cost-driving proposals in a very special situation.

Madam Speaker! The second part where we Social Democrats and also the Left Party see deficiencies in the government's proposal concerns which elected officials are covered by the proposal. According to the government's proposal, the legislation shall affect politicians who perform assignments on a full-time basis or a significant part of full-time. But there are many part-time politicians who have public and sensitive chairmanship positions with a significantly lower remuneration than both full-time and a significant part of full-time. This could, for example, concern the chairman of the municipal council or the chairman of the social welfare committee in smaller municipalities, or for that matter also individual members who make decisions in very sensitive matters.

We therefore consider that municipalities and regions need to have a preparedness for the vulnerability of elected representatives regardless of how extensive the assignment is. Therefore, the legislation should be designed so that it appears that the support for those who are vulnerable shall also be needs-based. We therefore want the government to return with proposals for legislation that means that municipalities' and regions' responsibility for the safety of elected representatives, including for hobby politicians, is ensured, based on need.

Ensuring strong protection for the elected representatives in municipalities and regions is crucial for local democracy to be able to attract more people to dare to take responsibility for their community and collectively make decisions on important issues. In that, I believe we are fairly united in this chamber, even if we differ in parts of the design of the proposal.

Madam President! I conclude by moving to approve reservation 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 3. Above all, I want to emphasize what previous speakers have touched upon, namely that this issue is of the utmost importance for strengthening our democracy. People must feel a sense of security in being able to undertake a political mandate. Who else would want to be a politician?

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, there is often an acceptance of or insight into the fact that being an elected official can lead to consequences, that one risks being subjected to threats and hate in the worst-case scenario.

Madam Speaker! What is, however, a major problem for the vast majority of us is when our relatives, those who are closest to us, risk being subjected to threats and hate. They have not actively chosen to take a role in the public sphere, as for example we Members of Parliament have done. This is also shown in, for example, various surveys, including the survey that also Members of Parliament respond to regarding safety.

This matter, however, does not concern us Members of Parliament, but our political comrades in regions and municipalities. It is a very serious threat to democracy that there is, despite everything, so much threat and hate occurring.

I could actually only agree with what the previous speaker said, because I and the Social Democrats have several common reservations and also roughly the same argumentation, at least in our common reservations. But I really want to emphasize that it is not reservations where we are against the government's proposal, but rather that we wonder about the government's proposal. We believe there are reasons to consider a different design that would be better and include more.

In the government's proposal, it is stated that municipalities and regions shall take all measures necessary to prevent politicians who have full-time assignments, i.e., mostly municipal and regional councilors, from suffering from ill health or accidents as a result of being subjected to threats and violence. The bill also states that the starting point shall be that everything that can lead to ill health or accidents shall be changed or replaced, so that the risk of ill health or accidents is eliminated. Training shall also be offered.

We welcome these intentions as stated, but we are perhaps a bit questioning how the financing is envisioned. The Government's assessment is that the proposal will only entail increased costs of 6 million. At the same time, the Government makes the assessment that each municipality and region will, on average, need to include approximately six officials in the security work already being conducted today, in addition to certain one-off costs and extra work required in an initial stage.

It is an assessment that differs quite a bit from the assessments of many of the affected municipalities and regions. I have a major concern there. How can such a small sum be able to fulfill this very important purpose and this good intention, especially when the times are characterized by high prices and inflation?

I also find it difficult to understand how it can be considered that this proposal should only cover full-time politicians. Many of us can probably testify that threats and hate are directed at elected politicians regardless of the extent of the political mandate. I have personal experience of this. In my case, it was enough to submit a motion in the regional council for me to receive threats and hate. This is also something that several municipalities highlight in their referral responses.

In order for the political process to be protected at all levels, it is of the utmost importance that elected representatives can carry out their mandate without undue or threatening influence. But then it cannot be just a few, those who perhaps already have the best protection from the start, who are covered by the bill. I believe that the legislation should be designed so that even amateur politicians are included, depending on whether one is vulnerable or not. We know, after all, that vulnerability can vary over time.

Strengthened protection for certain elected officials and clearer internal control in municipalities and regions

Without having any knowledge at all about this, I can imagine that the decision yesterday – it was yesterday, right? – to close parts of Sollefteå hospital has certainly led to large reactions. I come from southern Sweden and actually have no insight at all beyond the media reporting. I can imagine that several of the elected officials who made that decision are having it quite tough right now, regardless of whether one is a regional councillor or not.

In conclusion, I want to say that Vänsterpartiet has a proposal that an agency should be tasked to support the municipalities in this important work of strengthening the security of elected representatives.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)